Gambling Commission heal thyself: Could Sarah Fox’s appointment be a political strategy?

Sarah Fox’s secondment from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to the Gambling Commission comes at an unusually unsettled moment for the regulator. 

Fox, who has led the DCMS’ gambling and lotteries team for four years, will join the Commission’s executive team with responsibility for policy, research and statistics and National Lottery regulation. Her arrival follows the departure of executive director Tim Miller and comes three months after Andrew Rhodes stepped down as chief executive. 

The Commission is currently being led by acting chief executive Sarah Gardner. It has also faced increasingly public questions about its evidence, industry engagement and role in turning the gambling white paper into policy. 

That backdrop has inevitably encouraged speculation that Fox’s move represents more than a routine reinforcement of the executive team. As a senior official from the Commission’s sponsoring department, she arrives with extensive knowledge of the regulator’s current programme and the political decisions behind it. 

Fox has overseen policy covering the gambling white paper and its implementation, the transition to the fourth National Lottery licence, society lotteries and horse racing. She has worked in the Civil Service for more than 23 years, including roles in the Home Office, Cabinet Office and Department of Health and Social Care. 

Gardner said Fox’s experience would be “invaluable” as the Commission completes the white paper reforms, evaluates their effects and seeks to protect National Lottery participants and maximise returns to good causes. Fox said she was excited by the opportunity to help the regulator. 

No suggestion of signal change at Gambling Commission

Yet Vaughan Lewis, an experienced gambling industry commentator, cautioned against interpreting the secondment as evidence that ministers are preparing to intervene at the Commission. 

“I’m not sure there is much evidence that the government is taking the criticism seriously,” Lewis said. “There are selected people within parliament for whom it is an issue, but they are still in the minority and remain outliers.” 

Lewis believes the machinery of government may provide a more plausible explanation than any political attempt to assert control. 

“I haven’t heard anything to suggest anyone is seriously considering taking this up as an issue,” he said. “The suggestion that it is more of a civil service concern about whether the department is receiving the paperwork and information it needs would make sense.” 

The distinction matters. Fox’s appointment gives the Commission an experienced executive at a time when it has lost senior personnel, but it does not constitute a formal change to its status or accountability. Nor has either DCMS or the Commission suggested her secondment is intended to alter the regulator’s direction. 

Nevertheless, the move follows a difficult period in the Commission’s relationships with both parliamentarians and horse racing. 

The Culture, Media and Sport committee has sought further explanations about financial risk assessments, including the evidence supporting their introduction, engagement with racing and the implementation process. The Commission’s decision to proceed with the checks before publishing full evidence from its pilot has become a particular source of friction. 

Industry and political frictions

That scrutiny was followed by a sharp exchange with the British Horseracing Authority. Gardner said the Commission was “surprised and disappointed” by allegations that it had failed to engage with racing, arguing that the claims were not supported by the facts. 

The BHA responded that the Commission had not engaged in the weeks immediately preceding its decision, despite attempts by the governing body to make contact. It also criticised the implementation of the checks before publication of the supporting evidence. 

For Lewis, the wider issue is not simply whether the government agrees with individual Commission decisions. It is the extent to which the regulator is exercising influence over questions that arguably belong with elected policymakers. 

“In some ways, parliament should take it up,” he said. “What is essentially happening is that the regulator is assuming a lot of parliament’s role and responsibility in the formation of policy.” 

He nevertheless sees little political incentive for ministers to turn the Commission’s performance into a major issue. 

Gambling Commission’s performance hardly ‘a serious issue’

“Gambling is either something politicians want to make noise about because they are clamping down on it, or something they do not want any noise about at all,” Lewis said. “I struggle to see anyone taking the Gambling Commission’s performance up as a serious political issue.” 

Fox therefore enters an organisation facing two distinct challenges. The first is operational: completing a complex reform programme, assessing its consequences and overseeing the National Lottery at a time of executive turnover. 

The second concerns confidence. Operators, racing representatives and parliamentarians are asking increasingly pointed questions about how policy is developed, what evidence supports it and whether affected sectors are being heard before decisions are made. 

Fox’s experience on the departmental side of those same reforms makes her well placed to bridge that divide. It also ensures her role will be watched closely. 

Her arrival should not automatically be read as DCMS taking control of an independent regulator. But with permanent leadership still to be restored and disputes over financial risk assessments unresolved, the secondment places one of government’s most experienced gambling officials at the centre of the Commission precisely when its judgment and accountability are under growing examination.